Sign in to ScholarOne Manuscripts using your User ID and password. If you already have an account but have forgotten your login or password, enter your email address in the area "Password Help. Enter your e-mail address to receive an e-mail with your account information". If you do not receive a response email within one day, or if you do not already have an account, click on "New User? Register here". The bolded fields in the account information area are required information.

We ask that you enter some keywords in the "keyword" text box. Our system links keywords to the names of potential reviewers, a feature that expedites the review process. Also, if you anticipate that you will need to be notified by more than one email address, please include it in the "2nd email (CC)" field. You may mark this email address "active" or "inactive" as appropriate.

Uploading Materials for Peer Review

After you sign in, click "author center" in the main menu. Then click "submit first draft of a new manuscript". The system will guide you through the process. Files may be edited after uploading.

Editing Uploaded Files (Prior to Submission)

Order: Please be sure to keep your main manuscript as number 1 in the list. Click on the pull-down menu in the "order" column and select the appropriate number. For example, if you want a file that is third in the list to appear second, then change the 3 to a 2.

Category: To change the category of a file, click on the pull-down menu next to the category name and select a different category from the list.

Change Description: To change the description of a file click on the "i" button and type a new description into the field.

Delete: To delete a file you have uploaded click the "x" button. If you are deleting a file that was converted into PDF format, please be sure to delete both the original file and the file for review.

Proofing and Submitting Files

It is imperative that you carefully proofread your uploaded files before completing the submission process, as we do not allow duplicate submissions. Please check all special characters, mathematical symbols, Greek letters, equations, tables and images, to ensure that they appear properly.

Errors can be corrected by going to the original document located on your computer and making any necessary changes. You may leave files in the system and return to them later; however, please be aware that your paper is not entered and we cannot begin the review process until you click the "submit" button.

Emailing Corrected Files (After Submission)

If you find that you have made an error in the submission of your manuscript (e.g,. uploaded the wrong file, left one or more files out, etc.), please email the journal administrator for the title you are submitting to. Do not attempt to delete and/or resubmit it into ScholarOne Manuscripts, as this will only produce duplicate entries of the paper.

Manuscript Types & Page Lengths

The following table shows the various manuscript types and lengths accepted by IEEE Computer Society journals. All regular paper page limits include references and author biographies.Note: All supplemental material must be submitted as separate files and must not be included within the same PDF file as the main paper submission. Click on the "Supplemental Material" link below for details.

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics

Regular paper* – 14 double column or 30 single column pages

Short paper – 8 double column or 15 single column pages

Comments paper – 2 double column or 4 single column pages

Survey paper - 20 double column or 40 single column pages

IEEE Computer Architecture Letters

Regular paper – 4 double column pages

IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing

Regular paper* – 14 double column or 30 single column pages

Brief contribution – 8 double column or 15 single column pages

Comments paper – 2 double column or 4 single column pages

Survey paper – 20 double column or 40 single column pages [Note: Authors are to include in the cover letter a list of recent relevant survey articles on the same topic (or a claim that none exists), and a brief explanation of why this paper makes a significant contribution above these.]

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing

Regular paper* – 14 double column

Brief contribution – 8 double column

Comments paper – 2 double column

Survey paper – 18 double column

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

TSE accepts papers that report on substantial novel findings in the field of software engineering. It also welcomes papers that comment on previously published papers as well as surveys of the software engineering literature.

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

Regular paper* – 14 double column or 30 single column pages

Short paper – 8 double column or 15 single column pages

Comments paper – 2 double column or 4 single column pages

Survey paper – 20 double column or 40 single column pages

Please note that double column papers will translate more readily into the final publication format.

* Special Issue papers must adhere to the same page limit as regular and short papers. Please contact the publication's journal administrator for more information regarding Special Issue papers.

A double column page is defined as a 7.875" x 10.75" page with 9.5-point type, 12-point vertical spacing, and 1/2 inch margins. A single column page is defined as an 8.5" x 11" page with 12-point type and 24-point vertical spacing, containing approximately 250 words. All margins should be one inch (top, bottom, right and left). These length limits are taking into account reasonably-sized figures and references.

Submissions must include the following elements: title page, abstract, index terms, illustrations, bibliography, and author bios & photos (for regular paper types; will not be part of the MOPC fee assessment). References should appear in a separate bibliography at the end of the paper, with items referred to by numerals in square brackets. Figures and tables must be sized as they are to appear in print. Figures should be placed exactly where they are to appear within the text. We ask that you embed the figures in order to provide a smoother review process for the editors and reviewers. Figures not correctly sized will be returned to the author for reformatting.

Comments Paper/Correspondence Item

A comments paper is a paper commenting on an error one has found in, or a disagreement one has with, a previously published paper.

When submitting a comments paper, you must include the title and/or log number of the previously published paper. The journal coordinator will retrieve as much information as possible about the paper being commented on, and will forward the appropriate materials to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC). If the editor who was assigned to the previously published paper is no longer available, the EIC will assign the comments paper to another editor whose expertise areas closely match the paper's topic.

Keywords/Index Terms

Keywords should be taken from the taxonomy provided in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Using the keywords from the keyword list is essential to the review process because ScholarOne Manuscripts links them to names of potential reviewers who are associated with that area of expertise, thereby expediting the review process. We encourage all users to include keywords as part of their account information. If you currently do not have keywords included as part of your account information, you may add them by clicking the "edit your information" button on the main menu. Scroll down the page until you reach the "keywords" box. You may then select the keywords that apply to you from the list provided.

Abstracts

An abstract must clearly state the nature and significance of the paper and is required at the head of the manuscript. Abstracts must not include mathematical expressions or bibliographic references.

Word limits for abstracts are as follows:

Regular/Special Issue paper – 100 to 200 words

Short paper – 50 words

Figures

Please consult our art guide for details on how to best prepare and submit the figures for your paper.

Color Figures

TCBB, TPAMI,TSE, and TVCG accept color images for print. You may indicate the presence of color images in your paper on screen 1 of the submission process. Please note that you must explain your reasoning for including color images within your manuscript in the "comments to editor-in-chief" box on screen 9. Images will be printed in color only when color is necessary. Final approval to publish in color must be given by the editor-in-chief.

All journals can accept color images for use in the online version of the paper.

Supplemental Material

IEEE Computer Society Transactions accepts and encourages submissions of supplemental materials for review. All supplemental material must be submitted as separate files and must not be included within the same PDF file as the main paper submission. Types of supplemental material can include: proofs, code, experimental data, short movies, appendices, animations and audio files relevant to the research community. It is highly encouraged that authors take advantage of this opportunity to discuss and promote their paper as well as promote the research that drives the industry's community. Please refer to our media guidelines for additional information. These materials may be published in our media center as well as on our Digital Library with the electronic version of the paper, where they can be accessed for free creating the opportunity to gain further exposure to your paper. A pointer to the supplemental material will be included in the printed version. Files submitted to ScholarOne Manuscripts cannot exceed a combined file size of 50 MB. Files larger than this limit will be returned for modification to a smaller size. All downloadable media and files that require plug-ins, viewers, or other special software not typically included in a default browser configuration should include a link to the appropriate helper application. If you are submitting a video or audio file, please include a text file with a description of your supplemental material.

In September 2010, the Transactions Operations Committee decided to consider all appendices as supplemental material. If a paper's appendix is not initially designated as supplemental material, you will be asked to remove the appendix from the main paper file and resubmit the files via email to the journal administrator. The journal administrator will then upload the separate files to ScholarOne Manuscripts.

All supplemental materials must follow US copyright guidelines and may not include material previously copyrighted by another author, organization or company. If portions of your manuscript or supplemental files contain material that is the legal property of another party, you must retain pre-authorized written permission for reuse. Without proper clearance, your files will not be reviewed or published. If you do have clearance, please forward the documentation via email to the journal administrator.

Non-Technical Material

It is essential that discussions of the social as well as the purely technical aspects of electrical and electronics engineering work be included in IEEE Publications. The following policies shall be implemented by the Publication Services and Products Board and followed by editors and authors:

The subject matter shall be relevant to the field of electrical or electronics engineering, or computer science, and the field's impact on society.

Reasonable efforts shall be made to provide for adequate and timely presentations of differing viewpoints.

Materials shall include a statement that the opinions expressed are those of the author, and no endorsement by the IEEE, its officials, or its members is implied.

Author Contact Information

ScholarOne Manuscripts requires authors to enter a name and email address while registering. Email is our primary means of communication, so it is very important to verify that all information submitted is correct.

To update your account information at any time, click the "edit your information" button in the main menu. Enter the new information in the appropriate fields and click "submit information".

Author Affiliation

Additional institutions that contributing authors may be affiliated with can be included in the "comments to editor-in-chief" box on screen 9 of the submission process. You can also make any necessary changes to the affiliation(s) when or if you upload a revised version. Use the "previous" button until you reach screen 2 in order to make changes.

Image Permissions

It is the author's responsibility to ensure that he/she has permission to publish images in print and online in our digital library. If the author did not create the image, he/she must acquire permission from the owner of the image. If the image has been published elsewhere, authors must secure permission from the publisher and pay any necessary fees required. We cannot publish an image without the consent of the image's owner. You will need to provide proof of permission that you're authorized to use that image (via email is acceptable), preferably prior to submission, but definitely prior to publication. Contact the journal administrator if you have questions.

Citing the submitted paper in other relevant work under consideration for publication

Author responsibility for obtaining written permission to use material (i.e., charts, photographs, or other graphical or textual material) copywritten by other parties

Authors are responsible for reading and adhering to these guidelines. You must withdraw your submission immediately if you are unable to comply with any of them.

Concurrent/Duplicate Submission

Submissions must represent original material and no version of the submission can be concurrently submitted to any conference, journal, or any other publication.

Papers are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another journal or conference. If it is determined that a paper has already appeared in anything more than a conference proceeding or Letters, or appears in or will appear in any other publication before the editorial process is completed, the paper will be automatically rejected.

Papers previously published in conference proceedings, digests, preprints, or records are eligible for consideration provided that the papers have undergone substantial revision, and that the author informs the journal coordinator at the time of submission.

The question regarding concurrent submission appears on screen 5 in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Concurrent submission to these journals and other publications is viewed as a serious breach of ethics and, if detected, will result in immediate rejection of the submission.

We do not accept duplicate submissions of manuscripts. If you need to notify us of significant changes to the paper, please contact us. Please do not attempt to upload modified versions of papers that are already in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Identical submissions will be immediately rejected.

Preliminary/Conference Version(s)

If any portion of your submission has previously appeared in or will appear in a conference proceeding, you should notify us at the time of submitting, make sure that the submission references the conference publication, and supply a copy of the conference version(s) to our office. Please also provide a brief description of the differences between the submitted manuscript and the preliminary version(s). You must select the appropriate designation for the files during the submission process in order to assist the editors and reviewers with differentiating between the files.

Please be aware that editors and reviewers are required to check the submitted manuscript to determine whether a sufficient amount of new material has been added to warrant publication. Section 8.2.1.B.9 of the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations (PSPB) Manual specifies that authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication. If you have used your own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, then you are required to cite the previous work(s) and clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s). In addition, if you intend to submit a conference version of your paper to a conference after submitting to the IEEE Computer Society, you must state your intention to submit in your cover letter and provide a copy of the conference paper upon submission to the conference. You will also need to provide a brief description of the differences between the submitted manuscript and the conference version(s). Any manuscript not meeting this criteria will be rejected. Copies of any previously published work affiliated with the new submission must also be included as supportive documentation upon submission.

Submission to PubMed

IEEE authors who receive public funding for their research, and then publish the research in an IEEE publication, are required to submit their papers to PubMed.* At this point in time, IEEE does not submit papers/articles for their authors, the authors must submit the forms themselves by going to, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/authorms/.

*Does not apply to TCBB, as this journal is already indexed by PubMed and Medline.

IEEE Review Process Statement

The policies contained in this Section 8.2.2.A shall apply to the Editors of all regular technical periodical IEEE publications, except IEEE SPECTRUM and Society newsletters. At no time should a manuscript be accepted or published in an archival journal without prior review of the complete manuscript by two or more independent referees conversant with the pertinent subject area.

IEEE requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees should be regarded as confidential as well, and handled in the same manner.

Periodicals which are published in cooperation with non-IEEE organizations must have a review policy that ensures the quality of the papers. The policies of the non-IEEE organizations should be generally consistent with the IEEE requirements contained in this Section 8.2.2.A.

Requesting/Excluding Reviewers

You must indicate the reason for requesting or excluding reviewers during the submission process.

Double-Blind Review

The peer review process assures the anonymity of the reviewers. You can request review in which your identity is also kept from the reviewers. This is called a double-blind review. Requests for a double-blind review should be clearly indicated during the submission process. (Note: Transactions on Cloud Computing does not offer this option.)

While you may request a double-blind review, such requests must be accompanied by an explanation in the cover letter on why the double-blind review is being requested. Furthermore, co-authors must be entered and listed in the co-author list during the submission process in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Papers requesting double-blind review must still provide copies of and differences from related papers by the authors that have been previously published. It is your responsibility to ensure that all electronic files (including but not limited to supplemental material and preliminary/conference versions), file properties, and materials submitted for double-blind review do not reveal your identity or the identities of contributing authors. Note that author anonymity for papers with preliminary versions cannot be guaranteed due to the possibility that reviewers may search for those versions on the Web.

Requests for double-blind reviews will be honored at the discretion of the Editor in Chief based on the reasons behind the requests.

Length of Review Process

The length of the review process varies between papers, and many factors affect the time it takes to review a paper. The time it takes for an associate editor to be assigned, and for available, qualified reviewers to be located, depends on the complexity and the type of material submitted for review. Each publication makes a concerted effort to keep the review time to a minimum that is consistent with keeping the publications reputation for quality and integrity. Each submission placed into review is sent to at least three reviewers, making one submission correspond to roughly three review requests. The review process for our transactions journals may take approximately six to twelve months to be completed. For IEEE Computer Architecture Letters the response time from submission to author notification currently averages one month.

Since we make an effort not to "over use" individual reviewers, we hope that you will make it a priority to help with the review of other submissions when we call upon you.

Submitting Final Publication Materials

When your paper is accepted for publication, below is the author checklist designed to help you meet the final submission requirements. Please note that all IEEE Computer Society Transactions papers are edited electronically; therefore, electronic materials are required for all final submissions.

You will be required to submit your final publication materials by the due date given in the acceptance letter. To avoid delays in the publication process, please refer to the author checklist below when preparing your materials.

Image permission (if applicable) - If you intend to use an image that you didn't create (that is, it originally appeared elsewhere or someone else created it), you will need to provide permission that you're authorized to use that image to the production editor assigned to work with you on your article. The editor will guide you on exactly what that process will entail.

The following reference guide lists our printing specifications. Please consult this guide when considering how to best create graphics that will appear at the highest quality in print and online.

View the print specifications PDF.

* PDF files of final, accepted papers will be downloaded from ScholarOne Manuscripts and used for preprints and publication. No changes can be made to a preprint. Any typographical errors may be addressed with the production editor during the proofing stage. ~All editable versions (Word or Latex) must match this final accepted PDF version downloaded from ScholarOne. Any subsequent PDF files will not be used for production.~

**Please do not send a .bib file, we only use .bbl files. Please include only those references pertaining to the paper you are submitting.

***The author, in providing a signed copyright form, understands that all copyrights in and to the above work are assigned to The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. ("IEEE"). All text and figures must be owned and created by the author, except possibly for material such as text passages, figures, and data that clearly identify the original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. Copyright clearance must be provided for the use of commercial or non-public domain images. The author represents that he/she has the power of authority to make and execute this assignment.

*****Must be a separate file from the main paper file and named as "log #-supp." The supplemental file(s) will also be downloaded with the accepted PDF from ScholarOne Manuscripts to be accessed with the article preprint.

******Applies to TC, TDSC, TKDE, TMC, TPAMI, TPDS, TSE and TVCG only. Please identify a teaser image from your manuscript that may be used in the abstract book as part of the OnlinePlus program and send this information via email to the publication's administrator. Note that failure to include this information will cause delay in posting/processing your manuscript for publication.

Online first publication model

The IEEE Computer Society uses an online first publication model, which means that your paper will be posted online shortly after you submit all publication materials. As of 1 Feb. 2010, PDF files of final, accepted papers downloaded from ScholarOne Manuscripts will be stamped as a "PrePrint" posted to the IEEE Computer Society Digital Library (CSDL) and sent to the IEEE for posting in Xplore. No changes can be made to a preprint until the article appears in an issue. If for any reason you would prefer not to have your paper posted as a PrePrint, please advise the journal coordiator immediately; otherwise, your paper will be submitted for online posting shortly after all materials are received.

Open Access

IEEE subscription-based publications are hybrid journals, allowing either Traditional manuscript submission or Open Access (author-pays OA) manuscript submission. By selecting "YES" to the Open Access question, you commit to pay the discounted $1,750 OA fee if your manuscript is accepted for publication in order to enable unrestricted public access.

Any other applicable charges (such as over-length page charges) will be billed separately once the manuscript formatting is complete, but prior to final publication.

If you select "Traditional" submission in ScholarOne Manuscripts, your article will be available to qualified subscribers and purchasers via IEEE Xplore and the CSDL. No OA payment is required for Traditional submission.

Mandatory Overlength Page Charges

The following policy on mandatory overlength page charges applies to the journals listed below.

IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing

IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing

IEEE Transactions on Computers

IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

IEEE Transactions on Emerging Technologies in Computing

IEEE Transactions on Haptics

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

In its mission to maintain a consistent and high quality publication process, the IEEE Computer Society follows a strict policy on the lengths of both submitted manuscripts and final papers. Submission length restrictions not only encourage authors to submit concise papers that readers will appreciate, but they help to keep the review process timely. Length limits on final papers help maintain uniform editorial standards and consistency with page budgets.

So that manuscripts meet submission requirements, supporting but nonessential information should be submitted as supplemental material. However, there may occasionally be an accepted (final) paper for which an editor-in-chief determines that an exception to the standard limit is appropriate and that from one to four additional pages are needed. The IEEE Computer Society allows for this possibility within its policy on mandatory overlength page charges.

Independent of any voluntary page charges, the IEEE Computer Society assesses the authors of accepted papers that exceed the regular paper length limit after final editing and layout, a fee called Mandatory Overlength Page Charges (MOPC). The regular paper page length limit is defined at 14 formatted transactions pages (12 pages for TOH, TCC, & TETC), including references and author biographies. Any pages or fraction thereof exceeding this limit are charged $200 per page. Regular papers may not exceed 18 formatted transactions pages. Authors will be notified of any assessed charges when galley proofs are sent for review. Payment must be sent at the time galley proofs are approved by the author. The Computer Society's policy on page limits as described here is strictly enforced. Note that authors cannot pay for extra pages. All submissions must meet the journal's submission guidelines.

Copyright Form & Policy

The author is responsible for obtaining copyright releases and corporate and security clearances prior to submitting material for consideration. It is the IEEE's policy to assume that all clearances are granted when a paper is submitted.

This paper by Harold Stone (PDF) outlines basic author responsibilities in the area of copyright, re-use of material from your own previous publications and as well as publications by others. It also touches on issues of duplicate, simultaneous, and plagiarized publications. All authors should be familiar with the guidelines summarized in Table 1 of this paper.

Media Center

New media center pages have been designed to host all Transactions journal's multimedia submitted by you, the EIC, volunteers, and authors. Any media (audio or video) received for Transactions journals will be posted on these pages. This multimedia may also be posted on the Transactions journal's home page for a short period of time and promoted in our relevant newsletters and press releases. Please refer to the Journals Media Center for additional information.

Submission Templates

These templates are only meant to aid you in preparing a draft of your manuscript for peer-review, but they do not and will not reflect the final format for publication. The published paper will appear as formatted by IEEE Computer Society publication staff. Note that the single column template should only be used for peer review and not final submission.

How to Use ScholarOne Manuscripts

If you need your user ID and/or password, or have any problems using ScholarOne Manuscripts, please contact the journal administrator.

ScholarOne Manuscripts movie tutorials (especially numbers 5 and 8) are available to help you navigate through the system. As an editor, you are responsible for understanding and helping us implement our peer-review policies and procedures.

Supplemental Material

IEEE Computer Society journals accept supplemental materials for review with submissions. These materials may be published on our digital library with the electronic version of the paper, where they can be accessed for free. A pointer to the Supplemental material will be included in the printed version.

If the author has included supplemental material, reviewers will be required to answer two supplemental material related questions during the review process.

Role of the Editor

The editor, as a member of the editorial board of the publication, is responsible for ensuring that the publication maintains the highest quality while adhering to the publication policies and procedures of both the Computer Society and of the IEEE. Although you may currently be serving as an editor or reviewer for one or more publications of other IEEE Societies, the procedures set out for the Computer Society's transactions may be different. Therefore, we request that you read through our entire guidelines at least once, in order to get a sense of our procedures, and to understand how you will be interacting with the support staff, the reviewers, and the authors in fulfilling the important role of the editor.

If the author sends a submission directly to the editor, they should be instructed to submit their paper to ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M). The Journal Adminstrator (JA) checks the submission for compliance to our guidelines (i.e. page length) and then notifies the Editor-In-Chief (EIC) that the manuscript is ready for an editor assignment. It may or may not be the editor who originally received the paper. This not only ensures that our submissions are tracked properly, but it also ensures that each paper receives a fair and unbiased review. Papers submitted by authors directly to the editors should not be sent out for review. Any paper that does not go through the review process via ScholarOne Manuscripts will not be recognized as a submission and may not be published.

The most important role of the editor is the identification of appropriate reviewers for a manuscript. The EIC sends the editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process. Editors should assign three confirmed or five unconfirmed reviewers or administratively reject the paper in S1M within two weeks upon receiving their editor assignment. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the paper, he/she must include a detailed explanation of why the paper does not warrant reviewer assignment in the "Comments to Authors" section of the editor recommendation form.

Should a manuscript warrant reviewer assignment, the editor should personally secure the agreement of the reviewers to conduct the review in the allotted time before officially assigning them on as referees. This is central to the peer review process and triggers activities in S1M that set the peer review of a manuscript in motion. Therefore, it is extremely important that reviewers understand that the time frame established for conducting the peer review is three weeks from assignment within S1M, that the reviewers agree to this schedule, and that accurate contact information (in particular the e-mail address) for each reviewer is maintained in the S1M reviewer database. When a reviewer is chosen, the editor must check for any inaccuracies with the reviewer's information in the S1M database before assigning a paper to them, or add a new reviewer if they are not yet included in the system. Corrections to the reviewer's information must be communicated to the appropriate journal admin prior to assignment.

Reviewers are principally identified through peer contact, through the reviewer database in the S1M, or from references listed at the end of the manuscript. In rare circumstances, it may be necessary for the author to suggest possible expert reviewers, when a field is extremely narrow or new; this is an exception and the resulting reviewers may not be completely unbiased. This process should be used only in exceptional cases, since using these reviewers may compromise the confidentiality of the review process. In such cases, it is preferable to use references in papers published by the suggested reviewers as an augmented pool from which to draw potential reviewers. Note that the Computer Society's digital library, and other databases like the IEEE's Xplore can be used effectively to augment the reference list and database entries of S1M.

Select reviewers across a range of ability. Eager, more junior reviewers balance the more experienced, senior reviewer. Good reviewers are like diamonds -- although they are sturdy, one must be careful not to over wear them. It is extremely important that the schedule for conducting the review be met; one way to ensure timely reviews, and that a reviewer not feel overwhelmed, is to request one, but certainly no more than two reviews from a single individual at any given time. Also, there are occasions when reviewers may need assistance when performing their reviews. The first line of communication, when problems arise concerning the review itself, is the editor. The editor must be available for such communication by e-mail or by phone, and responsive to such requests.

ScholarOne Manuscripts will notify the editor and journal admin as soon as the required number of reviews are received. Manuscripts submitted to the transactions of the IEEE Computer Society normally receive three independent peer reviews. IEEE policy requires that no fewer than two peer reviews be conducted. Sometimes, in a very narrow field, due to workload or other factors, it is extremely difficult to secure a third review. In that event, it is permissible to have two peer reviews plus the review of the editor; however, three reviews should be the norm. Therefore, the editor must find at least three reviewers who accept to review the manuscript by the agreed three-week deadline. In the event that the editor provides the one of the reviews, this review should have the explicit indication that they have performed it.

The editor may recommend an "accept", "reject", "resubmit as new", or request a "major revision" for re-review. Editors may also request a "minor revision." In that case, the editor must personally re-review the paper before giving it a final acceptance. The editor is to complete and submit the recommendation form located in the paper's manuscript details. The EIC will render the final decision and will notify the author and editor of that decision.

If a major revision is recommended, the revision will be assigned to the same editor and sent out for a second round of reviews. Usually the same reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but at the discretion of the editor. If a minor revision is required, the JA will notify the editor for a final recommendation after receiving a copy of the manuscript. If a paper is accepted, the authors are given a publication checklist and are asked to prepare their final manuscript.

As an editor of the editorial board, you will be contributing greatly to our prestigious journal and our high standards of peer review. The role of the editor in scholarly publishing is a very important one: management of the peer review of manuscripts by members of the peer review community. The IEEE Computer Society requires the peer review of all papers that appear in our transactions and papers are selected for publication only on the basis of merit and appropriateness.

The editors for the publications of the IEEE Computer Society are responsible for the consistently high marks our transactions receive in the peer review community. By assuring the selection of appropriate reviewers to identify quality manuscripts, and by efficiently managing the peer review process, the quality and value of our publications are increased.

The Computer Society has been taking steps improve the time from manuscript submission to publication. One of the hallmarks of quality scholarly publishing lies in rapid publication. These efforts will culminate with ScholarOne Manuscripts, our fully electronic submission and review system. A set of procedures has been devised to significantly reduce our submission-to-publication window from 2+ years to less than 1.5 years. The new procedures under which you will perform your duties as an editor should be considered as "standard operating procedure".

Terms of Service & Workload

Terms of Service

The formal term of appointment of an editor is two years, renewable once. The transactions Editor-in-Chief (EIC) makes the appointment. During the formal term, the editor functions as a member of the editorial board for the publication; however, although the formal (voting) term of an editor may end according to the calendar, the informal term continues until all manuscripts assigned to that editor have been peer reviewed and a final disposition has been made.

It is extremely important that when an editor is contemplating being away from "home base" for two or more weeks, that the JA be notified of the absence and be provided with at least one means of emergency contact (e-mail, phone, fax).

Because an editor is advised prior to acceptance of the terms of service and responsibilities of the post, he/she is not relieved of such duties during any protracted absences from home base, or during sabbatical. In the case that a long absence is necessary, the editor must establish a means for his/her work as an editor to continue effectively, and the JA must be provided, and updated, with full contact information as the editor moves from one location to another. In exceptional cases, the editor may request a suspension of the term of service, which will be determined by the EIC of the publication. Even in such cases, it is expected that the editor will follow up with final recommendations on any pending manuscripts.

Workload

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) will assign an editor to the manuscript based on a paper's subject area. As a norm, an editor shall not be assigned more than three manuscripts per month during his/her term of service. This does not mean that each editor will only receive three manuscripts each month, as editors covering popular subject areas may be more active than others. Any difficulties with workload should be reported immediately to the JA and EIC. Temporary relief can be administered to ensure workloads do not fall behind.

IEEE Review Process Statement (8.2.2.A The Review Process)

The policies contained in this Section 8.2.2.A shall apply to the Editors of all regular technical periodical IEEE publications, except IEEE SPECTRUM and Society newsletters. At no time should a manuscript be accepted or published in an archival journal without prior review of the complete manuscript by two or more independent referees conversant with the pertinent subject area.

IEEE requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees should be regarded as confidential as well, and handled in the same manner.

Periodicals which are published in cooperation with non-IEEE organizations must have a review policy that ensures the quality of the papers. The policies of the non-IEEE organizations should be generally consistent with the IEEE requirements contained in this Section 8.2.2.A.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 4.5 months to submit their major revisions

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Computers

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials.

IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given a maximum of 6 weeks to review the paper

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

Note: These times are indicative and extensions can be given as needed.

IEEE Transactions on Haptics

Editors have 2 weeks to either administratively reject or invite reviewers to an assigned paper

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 1 month to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Editors have 2 weeks to either administratively reject or invite reviewers to an assigned paper

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given a maximum of 3 weeks to review the paper

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 6 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 3 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

Editors have 2 weeks to assign reviewers

Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the paper

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to re-review major revisions.

Editors are given 2 weeks to submit a recommendation in S1M once all or enough of the reviews have come in

Authors have a maximum of 6 months to submit their major revisions*

Authors have a maximum of 3 months to submit their minor revisions. The JA begins sending reminders on the first week pending.

Editors are given 2 weeks to review a minor revision and enter a recommendation

Authors are given a total of 2 weeks to submit their publication materials

*The JA begins sending reminders on the third month pending. At six months, the JA will contact the editor with a copy to the Editor-in-Chief, requesting permission to close the paper's file. If you approve, the JA will notify the author that we are closing their file, but that they can resubmit. Although the resubmitted paper will be given a new log number and a new set of dates, the author will be told that if they include their previous log number with the resubmission, we will link the new paper to the previous version. This same procedure may be applied to minor revisions.

Making Decisions on Manuscripts

The editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The editor's recommendation must be well-justified and explained in detail. If the editor's recommendation conflicts with the reviews, or if the reviews conflict with each other, editors must be careful to explain the basis of their recommendation to help avoid an appeal of the Editor-in-Chief's (EIC) decision. In cases where revisions (major or minor) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the "Comments to Authors" section of the recommendation form. The EIC must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. All decisions are final.

Accept: An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper "as is" and with no further changes whatsoever. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.

Major Revision: A major revision means that the paper should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. We strongly discourage editors from making a decision based on their own review of the manuscript if a major revision had been previously required. This may cause problems in the future if reviewers were to see a published paper that they did not have a chance to re-review. If a paper has already gone through two rounds of reviews,the option of a second major revision is not available.

Minor Revision: The minor version may not go back to the reviewers, if the editor feels the revisions are sufficient / appropriate. Any revision in length by more than 10% should be a major revision.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Revise and Resubmit as "New": This reject decision may be an alternative to asking for a second major revision.

Administrative Reject: The editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies.

Administrative Reject - Out of Scope: The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal. Please suggest a more suitable journal for submission.

Second Major Revision There is no rule against a second major revision as such; however, we strongly advise against it since the authors were already given specific instructions in the past and did not fulfill the requirements. If a major overhaul is required to the current version of the paper before it can be considered for the journal, we suggest closing the current file and recommending rejection. This will give the authors an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise their paper and resubmit it as new.

A recommendation of "Revise and Resubmit as New" is available. Editors may recommend that the author resubmit the paper as new as an alternative to asking for a second major revision. If you wish, we can instruct the authors to request the same Editor be assigned to their new paper, increasing the chances of an expedited review. Overall, this procedure will help avoid damaging the journal's submission to publication time, which is one of the foundations of its highly regarded reputation.

Expediting the Review Process

As the editor, you play a vital role with helping our papers move through the review process. This is especially true if we are having difficulties with getting enough reviewer feedback to make a decision. Here are some general suggestions of what you can do help expedite the review process:

Send personal reminders to your reviewers. ScholarOne Manuscripts sends up to three automated reviewer reminders. Although these three automated reminders are found to be very effective, receiving a personal reminder from the assigned editor, who is also a peer from the community, has much more impact. As the editor, you will be copied on the system's third reminder. This should be a trigger for you follow up with the reviewer. To do so, click on their name link under the review section of the paper's manuscript details.

Alternatively, we have set ScholarOne Manuscripts to highlight papers with reviewers who have been sent three reminders. This will indicate that the paper has become an "outlier". To see which reviewers require a personal reminder from you, do the following:

Log onto ScholarOne Manuscripts

Go into the Editor Center

Click on the 'Overdue Reviewer Scores' View

A list of the papers and their delinquent reviewers highlighted in red will pull up.

To send a message to the reviewer, click on their name link and a new message will open in your email program.

If you want to first view the ms details for the paper (i.e., the comments section) to get a clearer understanding of the paper before contacting the reviewer, click on the checkmark icon that appears under the "Take Action" section of the manuscript record.

Scroll down to the "Reviewer List" section to see the reviewer details.

Any correspondence to the reviewer should be done in the system by clicking on their name link. This will save a copy of the correspondence section of the manuscript details.

Make a recommendation once you have three reviews even if you have some outstanding. If one or two reminders have been sent to the remaining reviewers, you can inform them that you will be making a decision and give them a shorter deadline (i.e., one or two weeks) to submit their reviews. If they do not submit their reviews by the given deadline, proceed with making a recommendation. If three reminders have already been sent, then you should determine whether or not assigning a confirmed alternate reviewer(s) is more appropriate.

Inform your last reviewer that theirs is the last review you're trying to obtain. Informing a reviewer that you need their comments in order to make a recommendation often helps them better understand the added priority of submitting their review, especially if it is late and/or the other reviews give conflicting recommendations.

Comments Paper

A comments paper is a paper commenting on an error one has found or a disagreement one has with a previously published paper. The JA retrieves as much information as possible about the published paper being commented on and forwards the information to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) via ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M). If the editor who was assigned to the previously published paper is no longer available, the EIC assigns the comments paper to another editor whose expertise areas closely match that paper's topic. The editor reviews the comments paper and if they believe the commenting authors may have a valid point, they contact the previously published paper's authors with an invitation to review and respond with a rebuttal.

If the authors agree, they gain access to the comments paper (as reviewers) & receive a deadline in S1M. The editor is notified when the authors have submitted their response/review in the system. If the published paper's authors agree with the comments paper's authors, the editor may then decide to publish the comments paper. If the published paper's authors disagree with the comments paper's authors, the editor may choose to either reject the comments paper (if the published authors proved the comments paper's authors were unfounded) or have the JA send the response/review to the comments paper's authors for their counter rebuttal.

After receiving the counter rebuttal, the editor may either reject the comments paper or choose to publish both the comments paper and the original authors' response. In fairness to both parties involved, if the editor chooses to publish the comments paper despite the original author's disagreement, they should publish their response too.

If the editor wants to send the comments paper to the published paper's reviewers, the reviewers should be given copies of both papers to review. Please note that regardless whether or not the original reviewers are contacted, the original authors should also be called upon to review the comments paper. Everyone should be given a deadline, at the editor's discretion, to submit his or her response. In order to be fair to all the authors, if the original authors respond arguing against the comments paper, then their response should also be sent to the reviewers.

Sometimes an editor may be more apt to ask the published paper's reviewers to review the comments paper if they are taking over from a retired editor and are not familiar with handling the comments paper without getting the insight from other experts in the field. Nonetheless, the published papers' author(s) should always be contacted.

Preliminary or Conference Version

If the authors provided a previously published conference submission, please take the time before assigning reviewers, to check the submission to determine whether there has been sufficient new material added to warrant publication. Section 8.2.1.B.9 of the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations (PSPB) Manual specifies that authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication. If an author used their own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, then they are required to cite the previous work(s) and clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s). Please keep in mind that this rule applies to all aspects of the review process and must also be applied to all revisions and/or final versions submitted by the authors.

Per the IEEE PSPB policy, papers that do not meet “a minimum criterion for technical substance established for the periodical” may be administratively rejected pending consultation and agreement of the EIC and at least two editorial board members. Based on this policy, if you think that the paper is unsuitable for further review please select/assign the second editorial board member (instructions are in the editor assignment letter). You will be able to post your Administrative Reject recommendation after the review is submitted in the system. Please be sure to include detailed comments to the author on why the paper is not suitable.

Concurrent or Duplicate Submission

Submissions to IEEE Computer Society journals must represent original material. We discourage submitting to more than one publication at one time. If it is determined that a paper (a) has already appeared in anything more than a conference proceedings, or (b) appears in or will appear in a submission to any other publication before the editorial process is completed, the paper will be automatically rejected.

Papers are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another journal. Concurrent submission to other publications and these Transactions is viewed as a serious breach of ethics and, if detected, will result in immediate rejection of the submission. Papers previously published in conference proceedings, digests, preprints, or records are eligible for consideration provided that the author informs the editorial staff at the time of submission and that the papers have undergone substantial revision. The question regarding concurrent submission appears during the submission process in ScholarOne Manuscripts.

The guidelines for handling concurrent submissions are as follows:

If the journal administrator (JA) is informed of a possible concurrent submission, they immediately contact the editor handling the paper and the Editor-in-Chief (EIC).

The editor handling the paper in question and EIC at the other journal/publication are contacted to determine the status of the paper submitted to them. We also request a copy of that paper.

If the other paper is still undergoing review, both journals "swap" papers for comparison. The editors and EICs of both journals are involved in this process.

Based on the policy mentioned above, if the editors determine a clear case of concurrent submission, the manuscript is immediately rejected. The EIC sends the decision letter to the author via ScholarOne Manuscripts, using the dual submission letter template provided by the JA.

Peer review information for Journal Editors-in-Chief (EICs)

Assigning an Editor

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) will assign an editor to the manuscript based on a paper's subject area. Should the editor decide to not assign reviewers but instead administratively reject the paper, he/she will be required to complete the editor recommendation form.

If the author sends a submission directly to the editor, they should be instructed to submit their paper to ScholarOne Manuscripts. The journal administrator will then send the manuscript to the EIC to be assigned to an editor. It may or may not be the editor who originally received the paper. This not only ensures that our submissions are tracked properly, but that each paper receives a fair and unbiased review. Papers submitted by authors directly to the editors should not be sent out for review. Any paper that does not go through the review process via ScholarOne Manuscripts will not be recognized as a submission and hence may not be published.

As soon as possible, but definitely within a two-week period, the editor should assign reviewers (either three confirmed or five unconfirmed). If possible, please directly contact the reviewers in advance and ask them to agree to do the review as this generally results in reviewers who are less likely to decline. We normally set a six-week deadline for reviews, unless the editor makes specific arrangements with a reviewer to review more or less quickly.

ScholarOne Manuscripts will automatically notify the editor as soon as enough reviews are received. Ideally an editor should have three reviews before making a recommendation on a paper. At that time, the editor may recommend an "accept" or a "reject" for the paper or request a "major revision" for re-review. Sometimes editors will also request a "minor revision." In that case, the editor should personally re-review the paper before recommending it to the EIC for acceptance.

If a major revision is recommended, the revision will be assigned to the same editor and sent out for a second round of reviews. Usually the same reviewers are used for the revised manuscript, but that is at the discretion of the editor.

If a paper is accepted, the final accepted PDF is downloaded from ScholarOne Manuscripts to be used for preprint and publication. All editable versions (Word or Latex) must match this final accepted PDF version downloaded from ScholarOne and any subsequent PDF files will not be used for production. The acceptance letter also contains a publication checklist to aid authors in submitting final files.

For additional information regarding these processes and other EIC-related topics, please refer to the IEEE Computer Society EIC Manual.

Making Decisions on Manuscripts

The editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The editor's recommendation must be well-justified and explained in detail. If the editor's recommendation conflicts with the reviews, or if the reviews conflict with each other, editors must be careful to explain the basis of their recommendation to help avoid an appeal of their decision. In cases where revisions (major or minor) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the "Comments to Authors" section of the recommendation form. The editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the journal administrator if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear.

Writing an Editorial

Editorials should give a brief overview of current issues or the state of the journal, or give a short introduction to each new editorial board member.

Editorials cannot be regular papers. Editors are also prohibited from submitting papers to their own journal. Submitting to one's own journal may be misunderstood by certain members of the journal's readership as unethical.

Editorials should be no more than two pages in length, but not necessarily including new editor biographies and photographs. Biographies should be moderate in length, otherwise they will be edited.

Editorials should not include references unless absolutely necessary, and even then they should be limited to a maximum of four. Editorials must include complete and current affiliation and contact information.

Editorials must be submitted in an editable format, such as a Word document or text sent via e-mail. The editor-in-chief is responsible for reviewing the galley proofs of their editorial for accuracy of typesetting and communicating any corrections to IEEE Computer Society staff within 72 hours of receipt.

Peer review information for Journal Guest Editors

Role of the Guest Editor

Generally, guest editors (GE) will want to go through all of Special Issue submissions, weed out the papers that can be administratively rejected and then assign reviewers to the others. Generating a reviewer pool by confirming with referees ahead of time, even before the submission deadline helps guarantee adherence to our schedule. You will want to ask reviewers to complete and submit their comments to you within a maximum of three weeks upon receiving a copy of the paper. Authors should be instructed to submit their papers via ScholarOne Manuscripts. They are to specify exactly which Special Issue they are submitting to by making the proper selection in "Manuscript Type" drop-down menu on the first screen of the submission process.

Since the review process for Special Issues should be placed on a fast-track schedule, authors will be given a solid deadline for completing their major and minor revisions, at two months and two weeks, respectively. Authors should also submit a summary of their changes and responses to the reviewers' original comments. Major revisions should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews with another two week deadline, by ensuring that their original concerns were addressed.

Minor revisions are to be reviewed by the GE only, unless you need one of the reviewers to ensure that their remaining concern(s) were fully addressed. The authors should be given two weeks to make their minor changes and the GE's should take no more than one week to review them and make final recommendations.

In an effort to adhere to our strict page budget, we are trying to better enforce our long standing page limitations and formatting guidelines with our authors. In order to help them adhere to these guidelines, we need your support by suggesting ways to maintain the lengths of their manuscripts should you decide to ask the author to add new content. Please offer suggestions as to what they can remove so their manuscripts still adhere to our page limitation and formatting requirements detailed on the author center page.

Deadlines for Special Issues

Because the proposed schedule gives guest editor (GE) essentially six months to complete the peer review process for Special Issue (SI) papers from start-to-finish, we must strongly encourage you follow a faster-paced review schedule by doing the following:

Assign reviewers within two weeks of the submission deadline

Give reviewers four weeks to review their papers

Enter recommendations within two weeks of receiving reviews (the EIC receives a week to evaluate your recommendations & enter decisions)

Give authors four weeks to revise their manuscripts

Give reviewers another three weeks to conduct a second review

Enter recommendations within two weeks of receiving reviews (the EIC receives a week to evaluate your recommendations & enter decisions)

Give authors two weeks to make any necessary minor changes before a final recommendation is made

All special issue materials must be received no later than 12-16 weeks before the scheduled publication date (depending on the frequency of the publication).

It is important to conduct an initial review before reviewer assignment to weed out poorly written papers or those that are not within scope of the special issue. We also encourage GEs to try and confirm with reviewers ahead of time, so that they know what to expect and agree to the time commitments. A good opportunity to do this is during the SI's corresponding workshop or conference.

Making Decisions on Manuscripts

The editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the editor's own assessment of the manuscript. The editor's recommendation must be well justified and explained in detail. If the editor's recommendation conflicts with the reviews, or if the reviews conflict with each other, editors must be careful to explain the basis of their recommendation to help avoid an appeal of their decision. In cases where revisions (major or minor) are requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained in the "Comments to Authors" section of the recommendation form. The editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. All decisions are final.

Accept: An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper "as is" and with no further changes whatsoever. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.

Major Revision: A major revision means that the paper should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews. We strongly discourage editors from making a decision based on their own review of the manuscript if a major revision had been previously required. This may cause problems in the future if reviewers were to see a published paper that they did not have a chance to re-review.

Minor Revision: The minor version may not go back to the reviewers, if the editor feels the revisions are sufficient / appropriate. Any revision in length by more than 10% should be a "Major Revision".

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Resubmit as "New": This may be an alternative decision to asking for a second major revision.

Administrative Reject: The editor rejects the manuscript without assigning it to reviewers due to significant deficiencies.

Out of Scope: The manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal. We ask that you please suggest a more suitable journal for submission.

Second Major Revision

If a paper has already gone through two rounds of reviews, the option of a second major revision is not available.

There is no rule against a second major revision as such; however, we strongly advise against it since the authors were already given specific instructions in the past and did not fulfill the requirements. If a major overhaul is required to the current version of the paper before it can be considered for the journal, we suggest closing the current file and recommending rejection. This will give the authors an unlimited amount of time to thoroughly revise their paper and resubmit it as new.

A recommendation of "Resubmit as New" is available. Editors may recommend that the author resubmit the paper as new as an alternative to asking for a second major revision. If you wish, we can instruct the authors to request the same editor be assigned to their new paper, increasing the chances of an expedited review. Overall, this procedure will help avoid damaging the journal's submission to publication time, which is one of the foundations of its highly regarded reputation.

IEEE Review Process Statement (8.2.2.A The Review Process)

The policies contained in this Section 8.2.2.A shall apply to the Editors of all regular technical periodical IEEE publications, except IEEE SPECTRUM and Society newsletters. At no time should a manuscript be accepted or published in an archival journal without prior review of the complete manuscript by two or more independent referees conversant with the pertinent subject area.

IEEE requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees should be regarded as confidential as well, and handled in the same manner.

Periodicals which are published in cooperation with non-IEEE organizations must have a review policy that ensures the quality of the papers. The policies of the non-IEEE organizations should be generally consistent with the IEEE requirements contained in this Section 8.2.2.A.

Writing an editorial

Editorials should give a brief overview of the special issue, giving a short introduction to each paper. Manuscripts should be referenced in the order they are to appear in the publication. To protect the identity of the reviewers, no reviewers lists will be published. However, it is encouraged to acknowledge the general contributions of the reviewers as part of the editorial.

Editorials cannot be regular papers. Special issue guest editors are also prohibited from submitting papers to their own special issues. Submitting to one's own special issue may be misunderstood by certain members of the journal's readership as unethical.

Editorials should be no more than two pages in length, including guest editor biographies and photographs. Biographies should be moderate in length, otherwise they will be edited.

Editorials should not include references unless absolutely necessary, and even then they should be limited to a maximum of four.

Editorials must include each guest editor's complete and current affiliation and contact information.

Editorials must be submitted in an editable format, such as a Word document or text sent via e-mail. Guest editors are responsible for reviewing the galley proofs of their editorial for accuracy of typesetting and communicating any corrections to IEEE Computer Society staff within 72 hours of receipt.

Call For Papers Template

Please click here to access the call for papers template. Submit the completed form with your Special Issue/Section proposal to the journal EIC and peer review support specialist. Contact information is found on each publication's "About" page.

Peer review information for Journal Reviewers

Task of the Referee

Kevin Bowyer, emeritus Editor-in-Chief for IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, recommends that all reviewers read the paper titled Task of the Referee (PDF), about reviewing archival manuscripts.

"This paper by Alan Jay Smith discusses the desired form and content of a reviewer's evaluation of a paper. Regardless of how much experience one has in reviewing papers, it is probably worth (re)reading this paper. I once had an IEEE Fellow return a review of a paper that consisted of just one sentence, recommending that the paper be accepted after the addition of one reference—to a book written by the reviewer!"

–Kevin Bowyer, Emeritus EIC, TPAMI, 19 June 2000

"... preventing consideration of a paper by taking a long time to review it is unethical.""Keep in mind that if you expect to have your own papers published, you have a responsibility to referee a reasonable number of papers. ... Editors can choose not to handle papers by authors who don't fulfill their reviewing responsibilities."

–Quote from page 6

As a reviewer, you play an essential role in the peer review process. Our endeavors to administer a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and to publish only papers of the highest quality is largely dependent upon the efforts of reviewers like you. Your help with meeting these important objectives is greatly appreciated.

Conduct of the Reviewer

To guarantee fairness to the author, the reviewer of a manuscript should abide by a number of guidelines, including, but not limited to:

Respond within the allotted time

Provide sound, constructive reviews

Assume that manuscripts submitted for publication are not meant to be public

Do not use material from a manuscript you have reviewed

Do not share material from a manuscript you have reviewed with others

Do not distribute copies of a manuscript you have been asked to review unless the material is already public

Tell the editor, guest editor, and editor in chief if there are any conflicts of interest involved in reviewing a manuscript

IEEE Review Process Statement (8.2.2.A The Review Process)

The policies contained in this Section 8.2.2.A shall apply to the Editors of all regular technical periodical IEEE publications, except IEEE SPECTRUM and Society newsletters. At no time should a manuscript be accepted or published in an archival journal without prior review of the complete manuscript by two or more independent referees conversant with the pertinent subject area.

IEEE requires that referees treat the contents of papers under review as confidential information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees should be regarded as confidential as well, and handled in the same manner.

Periodicals which are published in cooperation with non-IEEE organizations must have a review policy that ensures the quality of the papers. The policies of the non-IEEE organizations should be generally consistent with the IEEE requirements contained in this Section 8.2.2.A.

Length of Review Process

The length of the review process varies between papers, and many factors affect the time it takes to review a paper. The time it takes for an associate editor to be assigned, and for qualified referees to be located who are available to handle the review of a paper, depends on the complexity and the type of material submitted for review. We make a concerted effort to keep the review time to a minimum that is consistent with keeping each IEEE Computer Society's journals reputation for quality and integrity. Each submission placed into review is sent to at least three reviewers, making one submission correspond to roughly three review requests. The review process may take approximately six months to be completed.

Preliminary or Conference Version

If the authors submit a previously published conference paper, please check the manuscript to determine whether a sufficient amount of new material has been added to warrant publication. Section 8.2.1.B.9 of the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations (PSPB) Manual specifies that authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication. If an author used their own previously published material as a basis for a new submission, then they are required to cite the previous work(s) and clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s).

Also included should be a brief description of the differences between the papers. You may use the public comments section of the review form to include your thoughts, if any, regarding the differences between the two papers.

Comments Paper

A comments paper is a paper commenting on an error one has found in, or a disagreement one has with, a previously published paper.

When submitting a comments paper, the author must include the title and/or log number of the previously published manuscript. The journal coordinator will retrieve as much information as possible about the paper being commented on and will forward the materials to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC). If the editor who was assigned to the previously published paper is no longer available, the EIC will assign the comments paper to another editor whose expertise areas closely match that paper's topic.

Supplemental Material

IEEE Computer Society journals accept supplemental materials for review with regular paper submissions. Types of supplemental material can include: proofs, code, experimental data, short movies, appendices, animations and audio files. These materials may be published on our digital library with the electronic version of the paper, where they can be accessed for free. A pointer to the supplemental material will be included in the printed version.

All materials must follow US copyright guidelines and may not include material previously copyrighted by another author, organization or company. Please see our guidelines below for file specifications and information. Any submitted materials that do not follow these specifications will not be accepted.

Supplemental material must also undergo peer review, so questions pertaining to supplemental material (if applicable) are included in the review form.

Journal Media Center

New media center pages have been designed to host all Transactions journal's multimedia submitted by you, the EIC, volunteers, and authors. Any media (audio or video) received for Transactions journals will be posted on these pages. This multimedia may also be posted on the Transactions journal's home page for a short period of time and promoted in our relevant newsletters and press releases.

Please help us create a strong presence in the media center by inviting and encouraging volunteers and authors to submit multimedia content that is relevant in the topic areas of Transactions journals.

Content on the media center page may discuss:

Your paper, and it's content,

Experiments featured in their papers,

How the research is relevant to the research community at large, and

Hot topics in the industry.

We would appreciate your participation and hope that you will find this program beneficial to your success in this ever-changing publication industry. It is our hope that volunteers and authors will take advantage of this opportunity to discuss and promote their paper as well as promote the research that drives Transactions journal's community.

Primarily, we want audio and video (which can also include animation and simulations). Examples of audio include EIC or guest editor introductions, article sidebars (author expansions), interviews, and roundtables. Examples of video include interviews, how-to tutorials, and conference/tradeshow clips. We also welcome links to blogs and other relevant materials.

If you're helming a special issue, examples of multimedia might include an audio introduction by the guest editors, audio/video/PowerPoint slides from authors, a link to an author blog for feedback, comments, and ongoing discussion, audio sidebars for each article, and so on. The best time to supply such materials is, of course, "as soon as possible." Failing that, we'd like to get them no later than at the start of the editing cycle (that is, when staff editors have contacted authors with a brief introduction and text editorial schedule).

What formats do you prefer for video and audio files?

For audio, we want the raw audio so that we can edit it if need be—for PCs, this means the .wav format; for Apple, .aif or .aiff. These are the CD-quality file types produced on each machine. For video, we want .mov, .avi, or .dv formats. We don't have the equipment to handle tape- to-digital conversions. If you're thinking of sending an .mp3 file (audio), note that it must be the ready-to-post, finished product (including any musical interludes). Manipulating .mp3 files doesn't yield good audio quality so only send in the .mp3 if it's absolutely ready to go.

How long should my files be?

Generally, shorter is better—audio files can go a bit longer because people tend to download them for listening on the go (still, 20 minutes or less is a good rule of thumb). To be compelling, videos must be much shorter—5 minutes max, preferably 2 minutes, if possible.

Do I need to prepare a script?

In a word, yes. Scripting or at least outlining your video or audio product in advance is a very helpful way of keeping it focused and sounding professional. In fact, the more tightly scripted it is, the better. Avoid loosely outlined material if you can because it often manifests itself in rambling or panicky pauses. If you plan on interviewing people, it's a good idea to share questions in advance so that all parties know what to expect.

What exactly can the multimedia team do for me? Do you have a "menu" of offerings?

Unfortunately, we aren't staffed as a professional multimedia production house—we don't have actors capable of doing voice-overs or huge editing bays that can fix video or audio files that started from a place of bad quality (recorded in a loud room, inappropriate noise levels, bit-mappy video zooms). But we do have a dedicated, smart, friendly group of people who will work with you every step of the way. Here are some of the things that team can do for you (see Computing Now for some examples; http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow):For audio – Insert musical intros and outros – Following a transcript, insert markers into audio files, so that users can "skip" from question to question – Apply filters to remove *some* of the background noise and/or boost vocal levels, but note that this is not a panacea (these filters can sometimes have the opposite effect, making the vocals boom out in an almost uncomfortable way) – With your guidance, break up your podcast into more digestible segments—especially if it's reaching past the 20 -minute guideline – Help you set up a release schedule for your podcast series (if you're doing a one-off audio file, this isn't all that important, but if you're wanting to set up a regularly scheduled program, our team can help you grow it) – If time permits, help trim out any "uhs" and "ahs" (this is where scripting helps—but bear in mind that you don't want to remove ALL your personality, and a natural-sounding interaction between people almost always sounds better than something overly stiff) – "Cut up" files into smaller segments—we sometimes reuse or repurpose our contentFor video – Insert text to identify the speakers – Insert musical intros and outros – With your guidance, typically from some sort of script or outline, splice together bits from several different files to create a seamless final file (note, however, that we can't guarantee rush turnaround, and taking on projects like this is subject to the material passing a vetting process to determine if the quality and content are acceptable) – Add your own prerecorded voice-over to the specific video segment you want to add it to

Products that can help?

(Please note, the Computer Society does not make reimbursements for purchases made without prior approval)

More advanced (and expensive) tools include Adobe Audition and Adobe Soundbooth. We don't recommend buying these software suites unless you're serious about audio recording. Audacity and GarageBand can take care of most podcasting needs.

a desktop tripod and a lightweight tripod for non- hand-held shooting.

a USB camera for capturing remote interviews over a computer. We use a Logitech Tessar 2.0/3.7 and have had good results.

How exactly do I tape someone? Help!

Even if you don't have an audio/video department to support you, it's relatively simple and inexpensive to set yourself up for audio recording (that said, again, please avoid using your cell phone). A microphone with a USB connection is a good investment if you want to record on a regular basis; you can also get an adaptor that will connect any normal vocal microphone to a USB device to plug into a laptop or desktop. As mentioned earlier, some free software applications such as Audacity are available for editing files, and GarageBand provides a good, simple solution for Mac users.

For video, something like a Flip cam (or equivalent, such as the Kodak Zi8) can provide a low-cost, good-quality result. Issues to consider when setting up to film: – Be careful using public areas because noise can be a problem. Most cameras don't have an external microphone jack, so you'll have to use the built-in microphone, which will pick up background noise. – Look for a simple background, such as a curtain. (Think how you'd feel if you watched this video: Is the shot appealing? Distracting?) – Set up near a window or light source so that interviewees are facing the light. (If the light source is behind them, their face will be in shadow.) – If possible, you might want to shoot a few minutes' worth of establishing shots (a sign with the name of the show, a room full of people, etc.) to include as B roll footage for editing.

Submission Instructions—Where will I post my files?

At the moment, we still encourage people to FTP their files to us at ftp://transMedia@ftp.computer.org (User name: transMedia, Password: media2011), but we've found that the really huge files tend to choke up the server. We're working on that through our own internal IT department. In the meantime, if you experience a problem FTP'ing, you can either post the file on your own FTP site or website (send us the link to download it) or use a third party such as Dropbox.com or box.net. Once your files have been posted, please notify Erica Hardison at ehardison@computer.org. Please include in the email, your signed appearance release form (electronic signatures are accepted), and completed Podcast Episode Metadata Template.

Just as with our print publications, we have editorial standards and guidelines we need to apply to ensure that we're providing the best possible content to our audience. The emphasis here is on high quality—if something looks amateurish, or if the quality is so bad that viewers can't see or hear the file, we will exercise the right to not use it. This is why it's so important to strive for the best possible quality files you can get—it's somewhat easy to edit text, but if a video or an audio file is horribly recorded, there isn't much we can do to fix it.

What if I'm taping a one-off audio/video file at a conference?

There are some situations in which professionals should be used to help you obtain quality recordings. These would include high-noise situations such as on tradeshow floors and where special recording setups are required (conference organizers are notorious for controlling this, so do your research in advance of your attendance). You'll also want to make sure that you 1. obtain signed release forms from ANYONE who's identifiable on the video 2. mention on the recording with everyone present that the conversation is being recorded for possible podcast/broadcast 3. review recordings of takes you want to keep to make sure you got what you wanted

Okay, I think I can do this—any last words of advice?

Choice of a venue for both video and audio recording requires consideration of many factors. If the shoot or recording is to be done at an unfamiliar location, you'll want to inquire with someone who is familiar with it about the factors listed below.

• Consider using professional assistance for the best quality recording and to allow you and your subject to focus on the content. • Obtain signed release from venue officials, if necessary. • When first meeting with someone for the taping, obtain a signed appearance release form immediately. • Seek a quiet room where the door can be closed and the walls aren't barren. Carpet or other sound absorbing materials are preferred. Check for echo before setting up. • Find an area away from air conditioning vents and other sources of noise (electrical panels can also cause interference). Service doors in hotels and conference centers can also be a source of noise if staff suddenly get busy. • Record one minute of ambient sound in case it is needed in editing. • Flip-style cameras are great on a tripod, but they don't handle the motion of a handheld shoot as well as older non- compressing cameras. If you're going to do a handheld interview, practice by pointing the camera at something for 5 minutes or so, to practice holding a shot with a minimum of motion. Handheld interviews give a certain "life" to interviews, but if you wobble too much, the viewer will get seasick. • Situate the subject so that he or she isn't facing solid objects or has a solid object close behind to reflect sound. • If possible, situate microphones so that they do not have to be held by hand and cables are out of the way. • Lavalier microphones should be placed so that clothing does not rub against them as the subject moves. • If there is an interruption in the middle of your session, you don't always have to start over. Just tell us where it happened, and we can often edit out mistakes. • Mention at the beginning of every recording what it is and who is in it. • Keep a log of each recording. • Test everything. In particular, test the audio and all connectors. It's very embarrassing to be ready to start and then to find out you're missing an adapter. Audio levels are crucial, so do a short interview with a test subject and then review it to check the levels and background noise and to make sure there's no hum. • If you're taping a conference call, use Skype (if possible) and ask all callers to be in a quiet location in advance of the call time, with a wired connection (not wireless or cell phone) and no planned interruptions.

IEEE Computer Society Recommendations for Volunteer Audio Recording

Submission Instructions

SoundBytes should be no larger than 3 MB and under 3 minutes in length, submitted in MP3 or WAV format, and should only describe the contents of the paper. Please be sure to mention the title of the paper, the author's names and affiliations, and a description of the paper during your recording. Please name your saved audio file using the convention "paper number_soundbytes," i.e., "TC-2009-01-0978_soundbytes." All authors who take part in the recording must sign the right to release form located at https://ecopyright.ieee.org/ (not real). You can electronically sign and return the form. You must also fill out and return the metadata form which contains information about the recording. This form can be submitted along with the audio file. To submit audio, click here.

Free Audio Recording Software

Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) is free audio recording and editing software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. You will also need to download the LAME MP3 encoder at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/windows, which allows you to convert your audio files to MP3 files. There are tips and tutorials located at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/. This software is easily accessible and very easy to install, and can record using an external microphone or your built-in computer microphone. You may alternatively use any other audio recording software that you have available.

Recording Hints

Suggestions for audio recording in an office or conference room:

Find an area away from air conditioning vents and other sources of noise (electrical panels can also cause interference). Service doors in hotels and conference centers can also be a source of noise if they are used frequently.

If possible, situate microphones so that they do not have to be held by hand and cables are out of the way.

Set recording levels properly a. Peaking or clipping causes distortion to the audio. b. Set the levels as high as possible without the levels peaking. c. Setting the levels too low makes the audio hard to hear and causes a lot of noise when the volume is turned up.

If there is an interruption in the middle of your session, you may not have to start over. Simply pause and then resume when you are finished with the interruption. Mistakes can be edited out later.

Recording equipment setup and usage notes:

Choose a very quiet location for the recording session where you are not likely to be interrupted

Set recording levels in a brief test, as follows: a. Position your microphone and materials as they will be set for actual recording. b. Start test recording (press "Rec" on Microtrack). c. Begin speaking in the normal voice you will be using for the recording. d. Adjust the levels by setting them as high as possible without making the red indicators light (when the red indicators light, the audio is being clipped and will sound distorted).

General tips for recording speech:

When starting a recording, give the recorder 2-5 seconds to start before you begin to speak.

Seek to add interest by varying pitch, pace, and power according to the nature of the material.

Be enthusiastic. By animated delivery, give evidence of your strong feelings about the value of what you are saying.

If you are not specifically doing a reading, take the time to prepare an outline to speak from, either mental or written, instead of using a word-for-word manuscript for delivery. Preparing an outline helps you to organize your thoughts. Using it for delivery makes it easier for you to be conversational and to speak from the heart.

In some cases, scripting exactly what is to be said is best. For example, when a brief and concise message is to be conveyed, such as in introductions, conclusions, or advertisements, scripting is the best course. Be careful to make the script conversational - as the statements would normally be spoken rather how they would be stated if written.

Optional Audio Recording Equipment

A USB microphone is recommended since it can be plugged directly into your computer for digital recording and it is not subject to the noise that is often produced by analog sound cards in a computer. For information on obtaining a USB headset with microphone (recommended), please contact Erica Hardison.

Journal Peer Review's Frequently Asked Questions

For Authors

What if I want to use a keyword that is not in the ACM taxonomy? Can I make up one of my own?

We prefer that you use the keywords from the taxonomy provided, but if you do not see a word that closely reflects the topic of your paper, then you may type the appropriate word into the text box. Please keep in mind that using the keywords from the taxonomy is essential to the review process because ScholarOne Manuscripts links them to names of potential reviewers who are associated with that area of expertise, thereby expediting the review process.

Does ScholarOne Manuscripts expedite the peer review process? What is its benefit to me?

By using ScholarOne Manuscripts, we hope to expedite the review process by giving editors and reviewers unrestricted access to their assigned papers. The system provides real-time information and encourages volunteers to take action on pending assignments.

The main benefits to authors are:

it provides a simple, step-by-step submission process

it provides access to the status of a paper without having to contact the journal administrator

With Editor – The paper has been assigned to an editor who is in the process of finding qualified reviewers to review the paper.

With Reviewers – The paper has been assigned to reviewers who are given specific deadlines to submit their reviews. A decision is made as soon as the required reviews are submitted.

Awaiting Editor-in-Chief Decision – The editor's decision has been forwarded to the editor-in-chief who is in the process of approving the decision.

Decision – A decision has been made on the paper. To access the decision, click on the "view letter" link. Papers that must undergo revision automatically appear in a separate view called "revised manuscripts". To view the decision letter and reviews, you must click the "view comments/respond" button.

How long do I have before a partially submitted manuscript is deleted from ScholarOne Manuscripts?

The system does not automatically remove partially submitted papers from the database. It is your responsibility to either complete the submission process for a particular paper, or click on the trash can icon in order to remove the paper from that view.

Is there a limit to the number of papers that I can submit?

We do not have limit on the number of papers that an author can submit at one time as long as they are not the same paper. We do not accept duplicate submissions. Please do not attempt to submit the same paper into the system more than one time. All duplicate submissions will be immediately rejected.

Can I submit my paper as an email attachment?

No. All papers must be submitted via ScholarOne Manuscripts.

How long does it take for the confirmation email to be sent when I submit a manuscript?

ScholarOne Manuscripts will send an email to you confirming a successful upload immediately after you submit the manuscript. If you do not receive one, please contact the journal coordinator.

If I request/exclude reviewers, will those individuals be used?

The selection of qualified reviewers is left to the discretion of the assigned editor. However, requesting or excluding reviewers can assist the editor by providing them a head start on determining which individuals can serve as potential reviewers.

Can I post a copy of my submitted paper on my personal, or my employer's Web site?

If necessary, you may post a copy of your submitted paper either on your personal site, or on your employer's site as long as your employer allows it. Please refer to the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights information page for additional details.

Is there a limit to how large uploaded files can be? How many files may I upload for my manuscript submission?

Please do not upload files larger than 20 MB. This size limit applies to all file types. There is no limit to the number of files that can be uploaded as long as they do not exceed that limit. Some journals may accept larger files on a case-by-case basis, so please contact the journal's peer review support specialist with any questions.

Do you need a copy of any preliminary versions? What if it was just an international workshop or an abstract that was published elsewhere?

Yes. We prefer to have copies of all preliminary versions, including those published in workshops and abstracts published elsewhere.

How do I know this site is secure? Exactly who will have access to my paper?

All peer review volunteers receive a user name and password to access their appropriate user centers. Only the journal administrator, editor-in-chief, assigned associate editor, and specifically assigned reviewers will have access to your paper. Their level of access depends on their role in the review process. The assigned associate editor will have access to your paper's entire manuscript record but the specifically assigned reviewers will only have access to your manuscript and their review.

I noticed that there was a mistake in my submitted paper. Can I submit a corrected or modified version?

Please do not attempt to submit corrected or modified versions of papers already in the system. This produces duplicate submissions, and duplicate submissions are automatically rejected. You are given the opportunity to carefully proof all of your materials before submitting them for review. Therefore, you should contact the journal coordinator only if modifications are crucial and would significantly affect the review process. Otherwise, all corrections can be made when or if the paper undergoes revision.

How can I see the reviewer comment files?

Log on to your Author Center in ScholarOne Manuscripts

Under "submitted manuscripts" click "view letter".

Scroll down to the bottom of the reviews and click on the attached file.

For Editors

How do I check the status of the papers that I am handling without going to the journal coordinator?

You have access to the status of your assigned papers at any time through your Editor Dashboard in ScholarOne Manuscripts. Click on the manuscript list title to view a full listing of manuscripts in each status, or click on the number next to the list to jump directly to the first manuscript in the list.

How do I gain access to my assigned papers while I am traveling?

You may request emailed copies of your assigned papers from the journal coordinator if you have problems accessing them through ScholarOne Manuscripts. However, please be aware that all actions and recommendations must be made through the system in order to maintain accurate records & in order to move the review process along.

How many reviews should be submitted before I can make a decision?

Our policy requires a paper to have at least three submitted reviews before the Editor can make a decision.

What do I do if I have a conflict of interest with the author of a particular paper that has been assigned to me?

Please contact the Editor-in-Chief via email to request that the paper be reassigned to another Editor. Indicate that it is due to a conflict of interest.

An author of a paper I handled has decided to appeal my decision. What do I do?

Please contact the Editor-in-Chief and journal coordinator via email, forwarding a copy of the author's email appealing the decision. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and then provide instructions on how he/she would like to proceed.

For Reviewers

Can I change my recommendation after I submit my review?

We would prefer that reviewers proof their review before submitting in order to avoid this problem. However, please contact the associate editor immediately if you submit a recommendation in error. They may be able to rescind your review for revision, as long as it does not impede the review process in any way.

How will I be informed of the decision on a paper that I have reviewed?

The system sends out a letter after a decision on a paper has been made. The letter is sent out to all participating reviewers and contains the decision and copies of the anonymous reviews.

How to I get a different type of file to review? I have problems reading a PDF file.

Please contact the journal coordinator to obtain a different file type for review.

What if I must have either a student or a colleague complete the review on my behalf?

Email the associate editor of this change so that the paper's record may be added to the reviewer list. Please provide the full name and the email address of the person who will perform the review on your behalf.

How do I obtain official documentation of my contribution as a reviewer? (i.e. for a year-end review, a degree, etc.)

Please contact the journal coordinator in order to obtain the proper documentation. Be sure to indicate the reason for the request and if necessary, the deadline you must submit the document.

Can I have my name revealed to the author(s) of a paper I review so that they can contact me if they need clarification?

It is imperative that reviewers do NOT voluntarily, or otherwise, reveal their identities to the author of a paper they are reviewing. Reviewers are responsible for removing all identifiers from supporting materials that they submit as part of their review. To preserve the integrity of the review process, the journal coordinator can communicate any necessary information anonymously to the author on behalf of the reviewer.

My area of expertise will soon change and I can no longer serve as a reviewer for a particular publication. How do I communicate this?

Please log on to your user account in ScholarOne Manuscripts by updating the Specialty/Area of Expertise, Keywords, and Unavailable Dates and E-Mail Exemptions sections of your account.

How long will a review I submitted remain in the reviewer center?

The system retains all submitted reviews in the reviewer center. You have access to all the reviews you submitted for any publication you are associated with at any time. If you review for multiple publications, keep in mind that you must be logged on to that publication's ScholarOne Manuscripts site in order to view your submitted reviews.